I can not seem to shake the bad taste I got in my mouth after reading this story. Then seeing that Bob and Mickey are involved with it threw in a sort of monkey wrench for me. I am in a conundrum over it. Have the guys and their millions become so far removed as to what is happening there, that they have just become part of the same machine of destruction that is destroying what is left of the remaining old growth. Just pay your dues boys and don't concern yourself with such matters! It just seems so different from my perceived (or maybe naive) notion of who these guys are and what side I always thought they would stand on concerning old growth trees. Anyone else care to expound on this subject and maybe help me see it a little clearer or different would be great. I know there are most likely many sides to this story, but I still feel a little bit sick from reading it.

a few more facts please

Weir and Hart are camping, bunking and sleeping with the enemy (Bush, Rumsfeld, Kissinger, etc). Are these 2 idiots getting behind torture, illegal wars, and crimes against humanity? I was shocked by this news.

I just called and spoke with Mary Moore in Calif. She wrote to Bob in July, 1998. Mary and I agree that this issue is much more about sustainable living and peace on Earth than it is about old growth forests. And how the hell can Mickey get behind Julia Butterfly on one hand, then do this on the other?

I am struggling with this. It's a hard pill to swallow. I disagree with Earl. Jerry's use of a few pieces of lumber have little to do with hanging out with these criminals.

"I walk the talk. I work for the community, and the community works for me. It's been that way for 40-some years now, and it hasn't let me down. I think that what we discovered [in the 1960s] is that community culture is a really good working paradigm."

"It's everybody's duty to stay informed and to participate in the culture," he says when asked about his motives. "What I'm doing is no different from what a lot of other people are doing, I'm just out there doing it, that's all. This is my country, and if I don't make it work, then who is going to make it work? And that goes for you and everyone else, too."

"If you want to stand back and allow everyone who wants wealth and power to run the show, then that's what we'll get."

I read the Vanity Fair piece. It's interesting and I had no clue about Mickey's wife or the active stance Bob has taken re the issue. In the end, I didn't understand it from a money angle because, knowing I don't have the facts, it seems like they could make more cash from the credits they'd get and that the logging is not very lucrative (and wholly ignoring the enviro and other issues).

That said, wonder how many chuckles they get when they play Throwing Stones at the Grove - or is that Unbohemian?

I forgot to chime in quickly on forest management vs forest fires. The old growth forests keep forest fires in check naturally. They also keep the topsoils in place. When you cut improperly - such as on hillsides, the soil erosion runoffs choke the drainages, creeks, streams and rivers with excess sediments - devasting to fish stocks. Logging road locations is also an important consideration.

In fall 2007, "wildfires ripped through Southern California, burning more than 500,000 acres of trees, destroying over 2,000 homes, and claiming nine lives. Scientists now say we should brace ourselves for more and more of these fires in the coming years, because there's been an enormous change in Western fires. In truth, we've never seen anything like them in recorded history."

Thanks for getting this back on track...did you notice how somehow I got completely side tracked with various fire ecology theories and such? Great fun, but clearly a misplaced and innocent (are all of mine?) hijack.

OK, scanned the article. Bob is suggesting he rubs elbows with them to help change policy? Seriously?

And he gives 20-33% freebies lately?

Finally, I still don't understand--are the Bohemenians doing anything to their old growth that warrants the discussion of fire ecology, OR are we just (rightly) pissed off at Bob for joining corporate American and the military industrial complex?

Personally - for sure, it's all my fault. I put too much trust and value in them for way, way too many years. Then I elevate them to unrealistic levels without basis or facts. I'm Dead-ass guilty. Obama can't even decide about how to handle people who torture.

Look, waterboarding is when you fill someone's lungs up with water. Period. You fill up their lungs, more and more. It's called drowning. Nothing is simulated. This is torture - along with other brutal and "enhanced" techniques that are horrible. We have made countless new terrorist and enemies by lies, torture, illegal war and occupation, and endless corruption. Pakistan is imploding. We created the Taliban when we fought a counter-insurgency against the Soviets in Afghanistan. We also helped Sadam out when he invaded Iran in 1980. People are upset and pissed off. We are facing severe climate change and a perpetual Ponzi-scheme. How are we gonna do this?

ACLU is right now receiving new documentation and photos in a FOIA (freedom of info act) filing. The pics will be out any time. Claims are being speculated that these pics show of a network of US torture by CIA. All over the place.

I have quoted Jerry here endlessly, as have many others. I'm a freak. I'm living in a time-warp. I still believe in the same core values I had back then. How could Bob & Mickey side with these people publicly?

Oh, trust me--that part I am on board with! I don't for a minute buy the "change" & "community" & blah, blah, blah...I also KNOW (okay, folks, you have convinced me he changed later, but I need my myth!) that "68 Jerry" would be in the background, as Bobby and Mickey were going thru the entrance to the gated community, saying:

Well, I still am waiting input from my other sources before passing judgement on the Bohemites, and their new found musical friends, Bobby and Mickey, but I did want to again stress that the primary problems in CA with respect to fire has to do with the placement of homes in Coastal Chaparral, and Interior Chaparral, two biotic communities that are literally "made to burn." A number of plant species therein will only germinate after fire, etc., etc., etc.

So, not taking any stand one way or the other, but the forests and "old growth" discussions are for a completely different set of biotic communities. The redwoods, strictly speaking, in CA, OR & WA are far less fire evolved than chaparral, and exposed to it less as well. The interior Yellow Pine/Ponderosa pine forests are a different subject altogether. But again, not as adapted as the Chaparral.

It is a fact that fire suppression in all three communities has been "bad" if you view natural as "good" (ie, in chap, coast fores, and inter fores). Cattlegrazing has been esp bad for inter fores as coupled with suppression it has created a very different community that burns badly, however you defn bad.

But, there is no easy way out, no simple approach for all of these communities.

However, when someone builds a home in coastal chaparral, in a wind swept canyon on a steep slope, do you think for one minute they deserve anything other than a pat on the back when their two million dollar home is vaporized? Much less the risk of life for those attempting to save it/them?

can't see the forest for the trees in all that...what i can tell you is forest fire was part of the natural cycle for rejuvenating old and unhealthy forests, that is, until humans intervened...in fact, private forests should be mechanically maintained not only to prevent disease and insect infestations, but also to reduce the risk of forest fires...nothing wrong with enjoying the benefits of effective forest management, if that is what is happening

sustainability is the issue, the once forested middle east now reduced to deserts should be enough proof to convince anyone of the results of uncontrolled "progress"

Someone else gets it! Why do you think Califonia has a big forest fire every year? Because "we can't cut down the trees, man" mentality exists. With man taking more of the earth to live in, forest growth must be maintained and controlled to avoid nature caused wildfires. Grooves are usually cut to keep the fire from spreading.

Don't get me wrong, I love trees and can't think of a better way to spend time off than camping and hiking, but there should be preventative maintenance applied to help curb a possible wildfire.

"a big forest fire every year"? As in singular? I get,and agree, with your point, but it's more than one big one now. I represent local fire departments and I can tell you its a year round fire season now here on the central coast - and we're not nearly as dry as other parts of the state. Where are you? Because I can tell you this heat wave that hit earlier this week had everyone mulling the upcoming summer and more fires to come.

They should legalize it and give some of the tax to fire and other emergency service agenices/entities

""a big forest fire every year"? As in singular? I get,and agree, with your point, but it's more than one big one now. I represent local fire departments and I can tell you its a year round fire season now here on the central coast - and we're not nearly as dry as other parts of the state. Where are you? Because I can tell you this heat wave that hit earlier this week had everyone mulling the upcoming summer and more fires to come.

They should legalize it and give some of the tax to fire and other emergency service agenices/entities."

You right BD. I heard some talk about the fire hazard on the local news. First CAL-FIRE tells residents to clear the brush around their homes. An idiot neighbor complains to the county and they want to harass people for obeying state laws. Some people still can't get permits, to rebuilt homes that existed before last Summit fire on Highway 17. That fire storm in Tahoe was a glaring example of the damage cauzed by this government agency infighting and the little get fucked over...

Ah--working BD and Earl, since unlike me, they survived the six pg (what?! I am expected to "work" here and read? I'd rather jump to conclusions), but it appears you did as well...so, is the point that these Bohemenian Rascals are just out having fun with chain saws, or not letting anyone else do it? They just want their pee posts left intact I suppose if it's the latter...

Hate to rain (ha!) on the parade here, BUT those in CA that have a fire each and every year are smack dab in Chaparral, a very different beast from Forest, in which to a far greater degree the plants have to burn...nuff said.

Now, MS raises an important point for forests of the arid West. And, we need to let them burn. We also need to get cattle out of them.

But, not sure what this has to do with the big article...sorry, got bored. What's the point and relation to the BOYS here? Sorry, just want to make sure "I get it" as this is what I make my living at...seriously.

Well there, without wearing out your reading spectacles, I'll summarize; Seems Bobby and Mickey have allegedly thrown in or at least rubbed elbows with some bad Republican Hombres and there's a degree of consternation due to the possible hypocritical nature of the "Save the Rainforest" ideals and those of this right wing logger group known as the Bohemian Club. (Outstanding run-on sentence.)

This is one of those "Secret Society" exposes and makes some tenuous links. Shock journalism for tree hugging deadheads. Evidently somebody took the bait and now they're feeling a little nauseous about those save the rainforest hypocrites Bobby and Mickey.

PS. I think I once saw Jerry using a toothpick made of Western White Pine. The bastard.

And BD, why of course I am pre-VERB-ally on point. On topic, or topical, hmmm...ointment only I suppose, made from the wax of Fine Corinthian Lather...or the roots of Ricardo's scalp.

OK, so, if I have the distilled version down, the boys, famous for the Save the Rainforest, are now seen with sprouts of the Bohemians, but are they pro logging? Or are they "save the old growth, anti-loggers"?

I take it they must be loggers, and that presents to us the conflict, right Earl & BD? I trust you two as my source of all things factual and truthful, concerning either Coach K's hair color or Keynesian Economics, whichever comes first.

In that case, well, it all depends on what these Bohemians are up to...if they say "log" and do so appropriately, I am all for it. But, having scanned the article, it is hard to determine what's going on, and whether they are attempting to return the forest to a more natural (fire ravaged...true, but hey...naturalistic fallacy aside they need it), OR just limiting the "pee posts" of the members...

"America’s richest, most conservative men, including Henry Kissinger, George H. W. Bush, and a passel of Bechtels, Basses, and Rockefellers—are known to urinate freely against the ancient redwoods that cover their 2,700-acre property."

on public land we should have had the knowledge and technology by now to harvest a lot of the growth in whatever way possible while maintaining the integrity of the canopy (therefore the soil base) the idea being a well groomed forest kept in a perpetual state of early>mid-life will generally resist wildfire

but yeah, that whole "playing god" thing and all...whereas letting it burn is the tried and true natural course

i struggle with the concept with my own tiny private old growth forest..things don't grow back all that quick up here, do i want my place looking like Mordor for the next umpteen years? for the first areas i was overzealous, then wind took out a bunch more, so now i try to make the changes slow and steady and carefully observe the results...some pockets i just leave well enough alone

like they say, "It's not IF there is a fire, it's WHEN there is a fire."

Yep, MS, a tough situation for sure...fire, where fire was, is generally, good; or to quote Young Franky: "fire is our friend!"..."but wait! I was gonna make espresso!"

Complex problem. We log it all, make for a uniform stand. Supress fire, grow it up, all the while worried as all get out since we have much higher densities, and given widespread introduction of cattle, the spreading of introduced grasses that forever alter the forest with high density of new growth trees, and understory of highly flammable grasses...

Can we ever go back? Hard to say...can we just let it all burn and start over? As you note, not realistic...

So, have to evaluate on a case by case basis. Certainly the logging industry, and the cattle industry, and their (in many cases, unfortunately) LACKIES, the USFS and BLM are the last folks you want to trust this shit to...Nor the rabid environmentalists that want everything left alone, when unfortunately, "left alone" means a completely alterred state, often including cattle, which changing the subject, are often characterized as "green" (a natural grazer...my ass!) by folks in power these days vis-a-vis land control.

As I sat down one evening within a small cafe,A forty year old waitress to me these words did say:

"I see that you are a logger, and not just a common bum,'Cause nobody but a logger stirs his coffee with is thumb.

My lover was a logger, there's none like him today;If you'd pour whiskey on it he could eat a bale of hay

He never shaved his whiskers from off of his horny hide;He'd just drive them in with a hammer and bite them off inside.

My lover came to see me upon one freezing day;He held me in his fond embrace which broke three vertebrae.

He kissed me when we parted, so hard that he broke my jaw;I could not speak to tell him he'd forgot his mackinaw.I saw my lover leaving, sauntering through the snow,Going gaily homeward at forty-eight below.

The weather it tried to freeze him, it tried its level best;At a hundred degrees below zero, he buttoned up his vest.

It froze clean through to China, it froze to the stars above;At a thousand degrees below zero, it froze my logger love.

They tried in vain to thaw him, and would you believe me, sirThey made him into axeblades, to chop the Douglas fir.

And so I lost my lover, and to this cafe I come,And here I wait till someone stirs his coffee with his thumb."

another fallacy is treeplanting, a largely ineffective forest management practice designed to dupe the public into believing that continuous clear-cutting is indefinitely sustainable

but you're right, some areas may have ecosystems that have higher tolerances towards different harvesting techniques...for example, the fragile nature of the once upon a time "Fertile Crescent" compared to the relative resiliency of Europe's ecosystems, which fared much better in withstanding mass agriculture...and yes, blind allegiance to government, corporate, socialist or any other form of extremism tends to produce horrific results

"Since it costs a lot to winand even more to lose,you and me better spend some timewondering, what to chose."

The first video brings to mind that line from Shane, "A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that. "

"I can not seem to shake the bad taste I got in my mouth after reading this story. Then seeing that Bob and Mickey are involved with it threw in a sort of monkey wrench for me. I am in a conundrum over it. Have the guys and their millions become so far removed as to what is happening there, that they have just become part of the same machine of destruction that is destroying what is left of the remaining old growth."

This just more evidence that the boys have sold their souls to the company store. That used to be called the town of Scotia, all of which belonged to Pacific Lumber.

Just another reason why I don't regret not buying those $100.00 tickets to a Jerry Garcialess Grateful Dead reunion concert. I'd rather hear a tribute band that isn't a corporate sell out...

I'm assuming the vast majority of folks responding to this post are currently living in houses built from timber. I am and I'm pretty comfortable with that fact. Well managed, lumber is a renewable resource.

Don't take offense, but not at all clear on your point...it strikes me as saying "one should not have a discussion about the economy if one uses money" or some such.

The folks I read below are contributing to a discussion of 1) what is the natural role of fire in plant communities?, 2) who are the Bohemites and why are the peeing on Redwoods?, 3) why are Bobby and Mickey hanging with a bunch of conservative wackos?, and 4)how should old growth forest be managed?

Whatever your take on the above issues, it is reasonable that you could live in a stick house...even if you were anti-logging you could be FOR tree farms under certain conditions.

As an example, I am for the complete removal of cattle from ALL arid land grazing allotments in the western US, and yet eat beef with glee. They should come from feedlots in Dire's backyard--er, Nebraska or whatever--but not Public Land.

You make good points, and it's one of the reasons why I try not to jump in on posts. I tend to get wound up with little time to explain a rather complex thought, post a "drive-by" and don't get back for a week or so. I'll give it another shot.

My reading of the main article that started the post was a indictment of members of The Dead for associating with folks whose political and perhaps, ethical values as regards "old growth" don't match the public perception regarding what The Dead should believe in. A number of forumites backed that up with their posts regarding a "sell out" of what they believed to be values that should be held by The Dead and that in some form or another, if Jerry was still here, he would disapprove.

I replied to the original post in a "drive by" attempt to point out that simplistic views of complex issues rarely resolves them. Of course, I presented my view simplistically, guaranteeing that it was invalid! I still think there are issues regarding "old growth" v "managed forests" that skirt the line of ethical or aesthetic, that may speak to the same belief system as whether cattle should be allowed to graze in arid lands or not. In other words, is an old growth forest inherently more valuable on an ethical or aesthetic level than a managed timber forest.